Before you ask me that, ask anyone who has experienced a home invasion. Preferably one who had no firearm and one who did have a firearm. No further explanation is necessary.

Funny thing about guns. As long as you have a few, you might not need them. When governments say you can't own them, only those that don't care to obey can have them. When criminals and governments know that you don't have any, then you might need them. Interesting effect that concealed carry laws have on would-be criminals and governments. So, who needs a gun? Maybe a better question... "Do you think he has a gun, right now?"

That would explain Liam Neeson's view that it's bad for everyone to have guns, when the last six or so movies he's made glamorize the use of guns by some people who really shouldn't have them.

Because I want one and the constitution says I can have one if it's any of your business I never said that I needed a gun and I sure don't have to justify it to you. Concentrate on stopping the government from stealing from the taxpayer to give to illegals and criminals.

Gotta love that Heinlein!! +1

Ask any gun hater if people should be allowed to own muskets. You won't hear a single one say that people should be able to. I think that makes your point invalid.

Nothing like a gun thread, 73 comments already on a cartoon of a gun, even two references to penises.

I read it in the new American Rifleman or Concealed Carry magazine, can't remember which. Basicly anti-gunners use feelings to equate guns with good guys and bad guys and thus guns being used for good or being used for bad.

To paraphrase the most eloquent, stand up guy I know, Judge Napolitano: The 2nd amendment exists to empower the American people to shoot tyrannical government officials should they attempt to take away your God given rights.

6 million Jews couldn't resist because Hitler had already rounded up all the guns.

Speak for yourself with a 'peashooter'. I have some pretty long-reach shoulder artillery.

That is what they politicians in Mordor are doing. They are classifying us in different groups by ethnicity, religion, skin color, gender, whatever they can think of. I call the Prez, the Divider-in-Chief because he is so good at it.

To paraphrase Hank Rearden (and for that matter, Howard Roark):

I could cite what you just said, as the more reason to let the people arm themselves. If you want to stop crime, harden the targets.

I could cite that, but I won't. Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms, exists and continues *independently* of any consideration of crime-stopping by any agency of the state.

We just have to arrange to be able to spit coffee across the room or milk out our noses while we laugh at anyone who is silly enough to ask such a stupid question. The emperor has no clothes.

One of my two favorite quotes from our founders, the other is Jefferson quoting another person.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

I was raised by parents who were against guns period.
In 1969 I was drafted. The Marines taught me to shoot.
For seven years beginning in 1973, I received death threats due to crime stories I wrote for a newspaper in a dry country full of bootleggers.
I bought my first pistol in 1973.
Now I like to keep a shotgun within reach by my bed. For the same reason provided in the picture.

Well, put - but if I may offer an amendment, I would say "Take the guns away from the murderers in Chicago, and *my* guns are still not subject for discussion, in any sense, not now, not ever."

I recommend reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

Awesome. I'll be stealing that to flatter you later.

To add to your good answer. Need doesn't have anything to do with it. As a legal citizen of the United States without a criminal record, I have the God given Constitutional right to have a gun. Take the guns away from the murderers in Chicago then we can discuss it. Until then, I have a gun because I have a right to a gun and Obama's smarmy attempt to take them away via fast and furious (is this where the ends satisfy the means?) or making bullets illegal won't stop a thing.

Molon Labe

The fourth one is also known as an AK47 Home Defense Rifle.

I always carry my pocket knife. It serves me well.

It has been structured to create organization that will shoot. I do think you could get reserve armed forces (the guard) to shoot on Americans as well.

For example, go to California and tell them that those rebels in Texas want to succeed from the union or take away their nearly free college that is subsidized by the federal government (worded differently) and you would have an army from California willing to shoot Texans. Apply the same logic to any two states with opposing views and its not a stretch to have some willing to shoot those left wing nuts or right wing nuts.

If the government can divide us into groups and get us to hate the other group they can get us to do whatever they want through that hate. Hate is nearly always irrational, and as an irrational emotion it can get people to do things they would not normally ever do.

I would also bet, but no way to validate, that more than 50% (very conservative estimate) of crime that is stopped by the existence of weapons in the hands of good people is of this variety.

By nature most robbers, muggers and rapist are cowards. They go where there is the likelihood of resistance is lowest. If they cannot find a place the gives them the confidence to commit the crime they will simply not commit the crime. Making it very difficult to put empirical data behind just how much guns in good hands help.